Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

"I think that in terms of pure accessibility Dan Harden and Mike Sigman may be the best to connect with in the sense that each has his own system, neither is beholden to anyone and can teach whatever and whomever he wishes, both are native English speakers and are extremely accomplished at offering systematic explanation of complex principles."

"This is a very simplistic synopsis. Each of these teachers offers enough to keep any serious Aikido student busy for years. Each teaches things that are either absent from most Aikido or at least are not taught in any systematic form. The exposure to these teachers and systems is transforming Aikido in a positive manner and I eagerly await the time in a few more years when this exposure has had time to turn into something really deep."

If you have some problems with the things you are reading in this thread, then please take them up with the above-named rokudan in your own ASU, because he is saying the same things.

I have a feeling you won't be so quick to sling a retort like "Debate over" at George Ledyard.

Then get back us on Aikiweb and we will pick this discussion up from there.

R

This really gets to the heart of the matter doesn't it. I really don't have time to debate every tom, dick and harry on the internet. Why should I ? The shear volume and background of the teachers who consider this work transformative to their Aikido....should speak volumes to a lessor student of the same art.
Why it doesn't speak to them is the key issue. I suspect the lack of cognative reasoning is due to an agenda. That explains why the thread reads like you are all talking to a wall.

For my part I have never seen my name attached to so many views and opinions that I do not hold and do not recognize. It's pure nonsense. I thought to address it, but after skimming through last night, quickly realized that my ACTUAL opinions wouldn't matter at all.
Oddly enough, here I am in another Aikido dojo, making friends, laughing my butt off, and they.....are reading this guys opinions...and laughing their butts off at dinner. They are ASU, they train with Ikeda and they want me back in the spring. No one recognizes any validity in this fellow's words.
I will continue to dialogue with those interested in truth, over agenda.

Since I have been traveling, I wish to thank Kathryn, Greg, Mark, and the rest of you for at least trying to explain things to this guy. In the end the truth will out, it always does.
All the best
Dan

Who cares if Saotome dropped a "karate expert." Did he teach you to do it? Or what I'm increasingly thinking, what's wrong with you as a student if your teacher manifests something and you can't learn it? All this talk about Osensei being a lousy teacher. Really? How about lousy students? Who then only have refuge in talking about the wonderful things their teacher can do.

Lest there be any confusion, Ken's example is merely a singular of a myriad.

Training with people from other arts is a great way to test one's assumptions, with a particular eye to finding blind spots in one's own training. Many possible lessons are available, but the ones most relevant to the post I was responding to include:
* The realization that good attackers don't actually unbalance themselves much, if at all, when they attack. This challenges the assumption that the energy of an attack makes it "easy" to unbalance the attacker.
* The realization that actually completing an irimi entry against a non-compliant attacker is not a trivial matter, and potentially creates many opportunities for reversals and followup strikes.
* The realization that merely getting behind someone does not, in fact, necessarily give you control of their balance.

Who cares if Saotome dropped a "karate expert." Did he teach you to do it? Or what I'm increasingly thinking, what's wrong with you as a student if your teacher manifests something and you can't learn it? All this talk about Osensei being a lousy teacher. Really? How about lousy students? Who then only have refuge in talking about the wonderful things their teacher can do.

Good questions, but you do have a teacher to teach you, right? It takes two to tango, the student might not be able to pickup what the teacher is telling, but also the teacher may not be able to bring across his point (efficiently). Today is the age of consumers: many simply want to be told what is what and how it is done. Quite contraire to the old days where you learnt by working hard....
Less talk, work harder.

In a real fight:
* If you make a bad decision, you die.
* If you don't decide anything, you die.
Aikido teaches you how to decide.www.aikido-makato.nl

Apropos of this thread as a whole ( a couple quotes from Dobsons, It's a Lot Like Dancing:

Concerning Ueshiba's power (aiki)

Quote:

Osensei said that it is easy to control people. What is much more difficult is to control them without using tricks. There are many things he did that I can't explain, like the way in which he woudl hold out his bokken and ask people to push on it. Since it would always be the same people, Subano (sic) Kenai (sic) and Saotome, and he'd never include me, I'd think, oh that son of a bitch. This is all rigged, this is all funny. There was a big demonstration one day. He had three guys pushign on the bokken. I slid in between Chiba and Subano (sic). I hit that bokken. I was certain it had to move. Even if you run up aaginast a wall, there has to be some movement. But there wasn't any, none. It was like hitting solid steel. Now, how did he do that? I have no idea. All I know is that I was dealing with something that could not be explained from my basic experience as a human being.

Concerning the question of religion:

Quote:

I know what he did when nobody was looking. I went on a trip with him to Kyoto, for three or four days. He had almost no meetings with anybody. We stayed in this house, in rooms right next to each other. I could hear every move he made. Whatever he needed, I would provide for him. What he did during those days was pray. That's what he did. That's his point of origin. He didn't go to the movies, go out on a date, or entertain a bunch of people. He just talked to God.

Just so this is not misconstrued, this does not mean that he demanded everyone follow his religion. But he was profoundly religious himself.

Back to the question of teachers and students:

One time my teacher, in an off-handed moment mentioned that my kicking wasn't so good. I joined a muay thai gym for several years.

Another time, he said that my grappling skill was lousy. I trained in judo for a number of years.

He never once told me how to do a technique. He just told me over and over how terrible I was. So I watched him carefully. And learned to do things as he did.

So I have little sympathy for the complaint that someone is not a good teacher.

(And that said, that Dan, Mike, Ark, to name just three, are so willing to articulate their understanding of these principles, and go about attempting to explicitly present their understanding for others' edification, is quite a remarkable development in the history of internal martial arts. Something worth checking out - if only to confirm that one's own path is sufficient).

@ Ellis
Your examples of what your teacher did, show the type of teacher you had: a good one.
Others will probably disagree because he did not explain what you had to do, but only showed what you were not doing. Students expect their teacher to solve their problem and tell it to them (consumer mentality).
A good teacher challenges you to solve the problem he presents....

In a real fight:
* If you make a bad decision, you die.
* If you don't decide anything, you die.
Aikido teaches you how to decide.www.aikido-makato.nl

Training with people from other arts is a great way to test one's assumptions, with a particular eye to finding blind spots in one's own training. Many possible lessons are available, but the ones most relevant to the post I was responding to include:
* The realization that good attackers don't actually unbalance themselves much, if at all, when they attack. This challenges the assumption that the energy of an attack makes it "easy" to unbalance the attacker.
* The realization that actually completing an irimi entry against a non-compliant attacker is not a trivial matter, and potentially creates many opportunities for reversals and followup strikes.
* The realization that merely getting behind someone does not, in fact, necessarily give you control of their balance.

Katherine

Something is rotten in Denmark when looking outside for things like the ones you mentioned is needed.

OTOH, Ellis quote of Dobson regarding Ueshiba's power reminded me this other one from Homma:

Quote:

Speaking from experience, I can relate my feelings about being an uchideshi and uke to the Founder, Morihei Ueshiba. Perhaps only those students who actually practiced with the Founder will truly understand my feelings. As full-time students of the Founder, our respect for him was of course paramount. Especially towards the end of his life, if the Founder asked his students to "push against him as hard as they could", there was not one student among us who could do that. It was not that we were not able to physically push him, it was that we couldn't.http://www.nippon-kan.org/abroad/sco..._scotland.html

@ Ellis
Your examples of what your teacher did, show the type of teacher you had: a good one.
Others will probably disagree because he did not explain what you had to do, but only showed what you were not doing. Students expect their teacher to solve their problem and tell it to them (consumer mentality).
A good teacher challenges you to solve the problem he presents....

This also, and perhaps more importantly (given that the teacher actually has the skills), shows what kind of student the teacher had.

I like Ellis' story. Reminds me of the time when I sat down in front of my teacher and said, "So. I'm slow, I don't know when I'm open, and I punch like your grandmother. Am I right?"

I think he was a little worried and at first tried to make sure I wasn't feeling discouraged, but those were all things he'd said to me and in the end he admitted that I was right.

Which was fine. I had the idea of studying boxing as a way of dealing with the specific problems he'd raised and wanted to check it out with him. But that's what I want from a teacher--someone who will be harder on my failings than I am. That's how I learn.

Something is rotten in Denmark when looking outside for things like the ones you mentioned is needed.

Well, yes. That's my point: that many aikidoka are not aware of their training assumptions and blind spots.

As it happens, I've been fortunate in that the dojos where I've trained have always had a decent number of people with training in other arts. I got smacked in the nose by a karateka just the other night, in fact. Totally my fault, and a valuable reminder.

opened a can of worms here i think.... any advice on my original post??
game of badminton perhaps?

some excellent information being banded about though

my take on things from a novice aikidoka... i've constantly heard that in a pressurised situation aikido doesn't resemble any kind of technique when performed correctly.. O Sensei's techniques (obviously not just his) and teachings, are these performed large and slow at first and statically for a beginner and then should these techniques become smaller and smaller trying to internalise these movements until they become part of our body movement, and the outward movements become less and less until they aren't obvious externally?? if that makes any sense whatsoever lol - that surely would tie in with chinese internal philosophy and explain why SOME exponents regard ueshiba's aikido as internal?? was he trying to show this all along??

O Sensei's techniques (obviously not just his) and teachings, are these performed large and slow at first and statically for a beginner and then should these techniques become smaller and smaller trying to internalise these movements until they become part of our body movement, and the outward movements become less and less until they aren't obvious externally??

Yes and no, IMO. On one hand, learning big movements is important for developing the free movement and lightness that is essential to good aikido. Once you can do that, your technique can get smaller and smaller *without* being muscular. On the other hand, the big flowing technique doesn't actually work (without a cooperating uke) without a lot of skills that beginners just don't have.

Likewise, static practice is useful because it gives you the time to really feel what's going on, but it can easily reinforce bad habits.

Oddly enough, here I am in another Aikido dojo, making friends, laughing my butt off, and they.....are reading this guys opinions...and laughing their butts off at dinner. They are ASU, they train with Ikeda and they want me back in the spring. No one recognizes any validity in this fellow's words.
I will continue to dialogue with those interested in truth, over agenda.

Dan

Once again we have Dan making insults towards myself as "lesser" student and referring to students in ASU as an authority, that I am not only mistaken but mistaken as far as Saotome Sensei would believe. This is a very dishonest way to deflect criticism of the claims that Dan and his supporters have made. These ASU students mind you haven't commented. At this point they must. They are allowing Dan to misrepresent the teaching of Saotome Sensei. Unnamed though they are, we know who he is implying that they are given his relationship with them. This is not acceptable.

I am presenting the teachings of Saotome Sensei as they were given to him by O Sensei. If these students in ASU haven't studied Saotome Sensei properly, his books and videos as well as the things he tells us, then they should do so. If it has been many years, then they should read his books again. Sensei has a new book out in Japanese about the teachings of O Sensei that will surely contradict Chris. Will they believe Dan and Chris or will they believe Sensei? Do they support what Dan has just said that they said, or has he embellished? They should not allow Dan to distort his teachings by implying that I have not presented them properly. I have studied Saotome Sensei and Ikeda Sensei's teachings very carefully, including books and narration from their videos, and have obtained confirmation in conversations with them that my understanding of what they have said is correct. Every student has an obligation to do the same. I have experienced what I take to be Dan's influence in ASU Aikido. I do not think it is a good influence for us as it goes against what our teacher is giving us. Let me quote from Saotome Sensei, which is what I've been doing all along mind you:

"During Aikido training, the instructor will demonstrate a technique for study. Everyone will practice that same technique, so everyone understands the movement of defense that is to be used. With this knowledge it is easy for the uke... to anticipate the movement and stop it. Stopping your partner's technique in this manner is dishonest and STRICTLY FORBIDDEN [my emphasis]. Each technique is designed so that a specific style and direction of force may be experienced and studied. AIKIDO TECHNIQUE DEPENDS ON BLENDING WITH THE FORCE OF THE ATTACK [my emphasis]. IT IS THAT FORCE WHICH DETERMINES THE MOVEMENT [my emphasis. Here is support for my stating that Aikido should not stop the energy of the attack and that even taking the center is not always necessary]. If Uke holds back the necessary force, there cannot be an exchange of the training experience and that technical application cannot be explored. Each attack must be completely committed, given honestly from your center to your partner's center with a fresh mind and sporty. The attack is given each time with full concentration, as though it were the first time and the only time. Now is now" (Harmony of Nature) - This speaks to training process, and many other things that I have reported.

"As your extended arm meets the attack, it is done with the spirit of Kokyu ho, without conflict, without impact. You must first connect with the attacking arm by joining its direction. Then subtly change that direction with the continuous rolling motion of a spiral, bringing both energies into accord. This is musubi" (Harmony of Nature) - there is no talk here of stopping the attack then throwing with internal unbalancing or whatever it is that Dan and company call Aiki. For Saotome Sensei, at least ideally, there is no separation between blending and throwing. Sensei shows an irimi nage, for example, in which nage responds to the strike by spiraling up until Uke is lifted off the ground and falls.

"In an old Jujutsu technique very similar to the shihonage of Aikido, the first movement was a punch to break the ribs. The jujutsuka would then pivot under the enemy's arm, barring it across his shoulder. The accompanying twist would separate the shoulder and break the elbow and the wrist. The throw itself would probably crush the enemy's skull as his head was driven into the ground. Very difficult to control and therefore difficult to practice, this technique was developed to kill the enemy.

When O Sensei organized his training process, he saw his technique through enlightened eyes. He saw the possibility of an even greater power through more harmonious movement, and a way to practice the technique safely without restricting its rhythm. With the joints bent in the natural flow of the body movement, it need not maim or kill, but would just as effectively control and aggression...

Although people often get the impression that much of Aikido technique is the refinement of old jujutsu technique, the rhythm and consciousness of Aikido are based on the movement of the sword, the spear, and the staff" (Harmony of Nature) - here is the source of my statements about not threatening the joints lulling Uke into cooperation.

"As you study the movement of Ikkyo, you must be aware, not only of your own center and your partner's center, but also of the center that is developed by the relations between the two of you. The center of the relationship is the de-ai, the meeting. Before the physical contact, you must understand this center and control it with your movement. As the attack begins, your movement begins, your movement begins. If your partner is truly attacking and committed, he will follow" (Harmony of Nature) - in other words, body positioning and leading. This talks of joining with the attacker, so it is not only in Nage, "body conditioning," as Dan and others have stated, at least not according to Sensei. The importance of body positioning leading is often stressed by Ikeda Sensei (who leads in a very subtle manner), Saotome Sensei, and was stressed in conversations I have recently had with high ranking instructors in ASU.

I can go on at length. Point to anything I've stated in this discussion and I can quickly reference support in Saotome Sensei's books and videos, as well as Ikeda Sensei's public videos (yes including his discussion of internal balance breaking), my private collection of videos and photos from seminars, and my conversations with them.

This is not about me, this is about whether Dan and company will be allowed to make the claims that they make about Aiki and Aikido, and about their knowing the real Aiki of O Sensei, more so that "modern" Aikido instructors like Saotome Sensei. You can see from Dan's posts, which I will quote again below, that what we have here is Daito-ryu attempting to infiltrate post-war Aikido as revenge for what they took to be O Sensei's theft. The only question is whether we will help him/them to do so.

Ofcourse Dan and company are slippery. They will claim that the power they are teaching is the power of Daito-ryu one moment and then when challenged they will pretend they never made the claim. Even the notion of Aiki which they allude to seems to be different from the notion of Aiki that Takeda Sensei had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiki_(m...arts_principle)

It is Dan and company who made all the outlandish claims that they cannot back up with evidence, argument, and logic. They were not forced to do so. I have not taken Dan's positions out of context. I have responded to what he says and what his students say. Here, again, are Dan's words:

Spin off of the latest discussion in the Bill Gleason/ Popkin thread on the continuing Aikido or Non aikido aiki debate and what is or isn't aiki when it is taught...and where is can be placed on aikiweb.

Since more and more top aikido people are going outside of aikido to learn aiki, it's not going to matter in the long run.
I have charted a course for my own involvement in teaching IP/aiki which I always stated it was a three to five year plan, with predictions of behavior.
The plan and events as I saw them
1. First, discussion of it. "Those outside people don't really understand the aiki of aikido."
2. Aikido students go feel it, recognize they missed it and they are not allowed to train in their home dojos.
3. Aikido teachers are shown it. They can't do a thing to the guys who actually have it. They see they missed it. They create an environment to train it and they start to teach it. They tell everyone "These outside guys are doing the aiki of aikido!!"
4. They start to get it a little bit and their students do as well.
5. As their bodies change and their mind/ body awareness improves, they convince themselves they actually had more of it then they first thought (forgetting the evidence of their obvious initial failures)
6. As they get better because of going outside, they think the people they went outside to get it from aren't as good as they once thought.
7..In time they convince themselves and their students that everything they wanted was there all along and they already knew it, those outside guys just reminded them.

Then, full circle in the near future
8. The new narrative appears. The people who were given aiki from the outside guys now take it back into the art and they say to their students. Those outside people are good but ....
they don't really understand the aiki of aikido."

It's only a matter of time. This is just the predictable path for the best budo people. Most of whom are self motived and self disciplined people. All input will eventually become self-awareness and self-actualization. They cannot help but to follow a process more or less along the lines of;
That guys amazing
I can't do that,
I am learning to do that,
My teachers did that
I forgot I already knew all that
That guy was a bit of an influence on me

Precedent
Ueshiba, meets Takeda. When they met, he cried from being totally dominated.
Twenty three years under Takeda- Ueshiba gets power. This was all based on and witnessed to be from...Takeda.
What do we get
What he says "Takeda opened my eyes to true budo...."
What he does hands out Daito ryu scrolls with a changed name, and refused to pay the fees he promised...and walked away into a world pointing to his vision..

I am a realist. What these aikido teachers are doing is going to change aikido. It is changing aikido, but in the end it is going to turn back to ownership from within...aikido. So, for me it's best to remain a nobody and just help when I am asked and watch it all unfold with interest. It appears that everyone has a shield or added layer in what they say on the net or say behind closed doors. For some strange reason, what they say and what they can actually do in person is...not always the same. I suspect it's always been that way.

So is this the aiki in aikido? You just might find that it's not only who you ask, but also when you ask them.

Standing on the outside and enjoying the view.
Dan

Aikido: Discussions of power
I would like to open with a discussion of O sensei by his son, Kisshomaru in... "A life in Aikido."
After a recent seminar, I was reading and reflecting on a direction, and and the continued discovery of the ignorance of such basics as the warm up exercises in the art and how and why they were done, what they were for and what they were meant to deliver to the adept.
_________________
"...since O sensei had made his search for the true path of Aiki the center of his life, I don't think these "legendary feats" were all he intended to do. But since Aikido was still at an early stage, I think he used these feats as a means to explain and promote Aikido to the masses, who might not easily acknowledge it without power or the proof of power. In other words, my sense is that O sensei's legendary feats were intended not only to demonstrate or show off what he could do, but to create and opportunity for the introduction of a true martial art.
O sensei could use some rather dramatic methods to show what Takemusu Aiki...was."
_________________

I think this stands in stark contrast to what has become of the art in the hands of those who thought to pursue it's higher goals without the means to deliver as martial artists. It strains credibility to be copying the trappings of a martial art without the means to deliver. And apparently the more one researches and reads, the more one discovers that the arts founder not only shared the same view, but stressed it continually.

Of interest, in the same chapter, We find a discussion of Kito ryu as the study of In yo ho, with direct correlation to Ueshiba's pursuit in Daito ryu's aiki in yo ho, with the advice that one cannot pursue one or the other, but must maintain the union of opposites to be effective. This lines up with the new translations currently taking place and those, fit in well with the Chinese models. Yet we hear these same sayings (which the non-aikido people understand)... were un-intelligible to those students of Aikido who would become the Japanese teachers the Aikido community is currently following.

I think that nothing has changed from the post war taking over of Kisshomaru to today. I believe O sensei's famous entry comment "This is not my Aikido" into the post war dojo, would be used upon his entry into the majority of modern dojo, were he alive today. I keep hearing this assessment stated by Shihan and teachers I am meeting. "I think we missed it." "I do not believe that we would withstand O sensei's scrutiny of our methods today." I think O sensei, would no doubt agree. For most, they cannot enter into an informed discussion on the tenets of in yo ho and how it applies to effective movement, much less how it would be the cornerstone of soft power in a martial art based on Aiki. It appears that once they experience aiki and the ability to generate power, they now agree that were O sensei to re-enter the picture today, his entry would sunder the Aikdo community, as many, if not most, would have to re-wire or leave. In other words, his re-entry would turn modern Aikido on its head.

Against outside pressure, Ueshiba's pursuit of effective power as the core of Aikido would withstand the current demands, would withstand critical review for internal power and aiki and he would in fact, get along with and have more in common with those pursuing that as the foundation of their aikido than the current methods of the majority practicing the art.
Thoughts?
Dan

He did say what he was searching for so it doesn't really need much speculation unless you didn't understand him.

What makes the softest aiki...is power
What generates control of others force into you that feels ghosty soft...is power.
What makes deadly atemi is power.
Most martial artists, do not understand power, which give those that do...power over them.
It is not about strength for force on force. Continually bringing it up shows how far people are off from understanding their own founders message.
Using small effort to move a large force requires power unseen or felt.
Using 5 and 5 to defeat ten is power unseen.
7 and 3 to defeat ten requires power unseen.
The source of that power is Aiki in yo ho.

Takeda knew it
Sagawa trained it and talked about it
"However closely you watch my Aiki from the outside you will not understand. That's because I remove the power from my opponent through internal movements that do not show in the outer form. Now I am able to remove the enemy's power no matter where on my body I am grabbed. The source of this begins from a simple principle,(aiki in yo ho) but nobody understands. You can see whether somebody understands by watching their Aiki-age."

Ueshiba trained it and talked about it
Henry (Kono) asked O-sensei "Why can we not do what you do, Sensei?" O-Sensei's reply was direct, simple and final, "Because you don't understand in yo ho."
"In order to achieve the mysterious workings of ki based upon intent, first realize the appearance of the foundation that is the ki connection (ki musubi) between the left side of the physical body grounded in the martial and the right that receives the universe. If you can achieve this connection between the left and the right then you will be able to move with complete freedom."
"Manifest yo (yang) in the right hand, change the left hand to in (yin) and guide the opponent."
"The way of the mountain echo is intent, standing in the center of the connection between the ki of heaven and the ki of the earth."

Tohei trained it and talked about it
Shirata trained it and talked about it
How you are meant to use it is the mystery that people do not understand. It is the source of aiki in-yo-ho. The very foundation of the entire art of Aikido....is power.

In his own words
Interestingly enough, Many of Ueshiba's commentaries are borrowed from Daito ryu and the Chinese arts. Some are almost word for word. In essence many of his Doka; Yin and Yang hand, dual opposing spirals, Six directions, Heaven/earth/man, mountain echo, are not his, they are concepts all borrowed from other arts.
And they were given to a student based completely incapable of even translating them correctly, much less defining and doing what he was apparently continually talking about.
When they were asked why they mistranslated, or skipped over translating these phrases on movement that were so dear to your founder that he repeated them over and over and are commonplace to about a million people, they said..
"We had no idea what they meant."
And they....became your teachers.

I agree with Both Sagawa and Ueshiba who is worth quoting again.
"Why can we not do what you do, Sensei?" O-Sensei's reply was direct, simple and final, "Because you don't understand in yo ho."

And Sagawa "All you need do is watch someone do aki age and you know if they understand in yo ho."
If you are not doing aiki in yo ho, you are not doing Aikido (the way of aiki). Ueshiba was right, it really is that simple.

Dan

Chinese: Yin yang
Japanese- in yo ho (method) yes it is a method.
By definition it is not about power dominating...
But you would have to understand what in yo ho means.
Which was more or less my point.

As I stated
Teachers in aikido don't get what their own founder was saying. It's not their fault, apparently it just isn't taught anymore, hence Ikeda going to Karate and Daito ryu to get it, others going elsewhere. I have read just about everything in English and it isn't there. It isn't in the interviews with the arts teachers. I now know the translators didn't know how to translate it correctly. They don't know the meaning of his terms, and they still don't understand his contextual referencing. As it was then, it is now, to the modern teachers...it's pretty much gobbledegook.

Some of us from...outside, are helping to fix this. Outside of Aikido -as aikido teachers attending seminars with teachers from other arts like the ICMA are finding out- this stuff is known. As one group of ICMA guys said to some aikido teachers: "Your art is a soft art, how come you guys don't know this stuff, what have you been doing?"

So we are trying hard to get the word out to aikido-ka, by reading it to them (their own translations are incorrect), teaching them where it came from, what it means, why their founder kept talking about it over and over and over and show them the same quotes from across the sea. Then we show them how to do it, and why it was important. So far it seems the teachers like it and find it important. Plus they get reading suggestions to awaken them to a world their founder was pointing to that they thought was indecipherable. It's one of the benefits of going out to learn.

As for in yo ho, as has been pointed out (but only to certain teachers) in watching Ueshiba videos....(and as Sagawa said) "You can see it instantly."
Hell, at certain points it was like Ueshiba was daring you. "Hey...look at me!" it was so obvious.
Dan

Quote:
Tim Ruijs wrote:
Dan
I have tried to find more on Aiki in yo ho, but nothing much came up. But from waht I have found:
Do I understand correctly it is about being able to become the link that neutralizes yin yang between your attacker and the universe ? Balance out yin yang? (do not know how to describe it better)
The power would be more about ability than actual strength...
You won't find anything.
Aiki is a method, resolving in yo within and without you.
It is more complex than the typical nonsense of doing things; like timing and power displays between you and an attacker.
Aiki begins in you, is perfected within you, otherwise everything you try to do with an opponent that creates kuzushi on contact will fail.
The type of strength produced is not what most people understand and or know how to develop, and for that matter know how to cope with. The dilapidated state of Sagawa-where he couldn't open a jar-is not a requirement. Most people I meet still have this weird notion that "soft" means evading or running away.
a) that is not soft, and it is unsupported
b) it does not exhibit yin yang
They just don't know how to produce power without flexing muscle, so they opt for that evading stuff and call that "Soft."
Interestingly, and in keeping with the tenor of the thread, the world outside of aikido, has tracked that type of understanding for hundreds of years and have discredited it as ...not being part of the "soft" arts. They also recognized that it was low level, that many can do it- as it requires no serious training or changing of the body. The changing of the body is the cornerstone of the soft arts and here we go again why O sensei said no one can do what I do, because you do not understand In yo ho.

Cheers
Dan

Quote:
Tim Ruijs wrote:
Dan
I have tried to find more on Aiki in yo ho, but nothing much came up. But from waht I have found:
Do I understand correctly it is about being able to become the link that neutralizes yin yang between your attacker and the universe ? Balance out yin yang? (do not know how to describe it better)
The power would be more about ability than actual strength...
You won't find anything.
Aiki is a method, resolving in yo within and without you.
It is more complex than the typical nonsense of doing things; like timing and power displays between you and an attacker.
Aiki begins in you, is perfected within you, otherwise everything you try to do with an opponent that creates kuzushi on contact will fail.
The type of strength produced is not what most people understand and or know how to develop, and for that matter know how to cope with. The dilapidated state of Sagawa-where he couldn't open a jar-is not a requirement. Most people I meet still have this weird notion that "soft" means evading or running away.
a) that is not soft, and it is unsupported
b) it does not exhibit yin yang
They just don't know how to produce power without flexing muscle, so they opt for that evading stuff and call that "Soft."
Interestingly, and in keeping with the tenor of the thread, the world outside of aikido, has tracked that type of understanding for hundreds of years and have discredited it as ...not being part of the "soft" arts. They also recognized that it was low level, that many can do it- as it requires no serious training or changing of the body. The changing of the body is the cornerstone of the soft arts and here we go again why O sensei said no one can do what I do, because you do not understand In yo ho.

Cheers
Dan
The attempts to redefine aikido as ai..ki..do was a recent corruption.
Aiki..do is congruent with
Ken...do
Ju...do
Iai...do.
Nothing more.

Familiar as you are with Saotome Sensei's teaching, surely you are well aware that he has no problem with those students of his who choose to study other arts as well? That senior instructors in his organization openly invite instructors from other arts to teach at their dojos, with no organizational consequences? That in fact instructors who have done so remain extremely respected within the ASU?

So why are you misrepresenting *his* position on outside influences?

As for the rest of the post, it is very easy to win an argument when you take both sides. You are taking message board posts out of the context of what Dan actually teaches -- of which you remain proudly ignorant -- using them to define a straw man, and then walloping that straw man for all it's worth. Meanwhile, you have resolutely ignored every attempt to actually discuss the merits of your argument, retreating again and again to an appeal to an authority (Saotome Sensei) who as far as I can tell does not actually support your position.

I can't do this particular irimi nage. I have only seen Saotome Sensei do it this well and O Sensei who does this technique several times on video. And as I stated earlier, Saotome Sensei DID teach us how to work towards getting this technique. What he taught us contradicts much of what I've read in this discussion. The approach you and others are advancing will never allow you to master this technique, at least according to Saotome Sensei. That's why I mentioned it. Also because it is an example of how Aikido differs from Date-ryu.

I never met Dobson Sensei. Several of my instructors and Sempi were very familiar with his Aikido and thought. I have been privy to unpublished interviews with Dobson Sensei that you have not seen. Nothing I have said contradicts what Dobson Sensei came to believe about Aikido.

There is an orthodoxy in the yo ho internal stuff that is being described here. Saotome Sensei is against orthodoxy. O Sensei was against orthodoxy. There are principles and their are general rules. There are exceptions. For example, the internal approach being advocated by Dan and company requires a strict notion of posture. I'm not saying that they are stiff or rigid. But they oppose leaning. I've been corrected in recent years by teachers who I believe have been influenced by Dan. Here's the problem, I have multiple screen shots of O Sensei, Saotome Sensei, and other high level Aikido practitioners engaging in strategic leaning. Ikeda sensei teaches this as a way to avoid the face punch as part of his tenkan. Despite the claims of Dan and others I am simply not as clueless about what they are doing and what my teachers are teaching as they'd like the world to believe.

Quote:

Ellis Amdur wrote:

Who cares if Saotome dropped a "karate expert." Did he teach you to do it? Or what I'm increasingly thinking, what's wrong with you as a student if your teacher manifests something and you can't learn it? All this talk about Osensei being a lousy teacher. Really? How about lousy students? Who then only have refuge in talking about the wonderful things their teacher can do.

Lest there be any confusion, Ken's example is merely a singular of a myriad.

You can see from Dan's posts, which I will quote again below, that what we have here is Daito-ryu attempting to infiltrate post-war Aikido as revenge for what they took to be O Sensei's theft. The only question is whether we will help him/them to do so.

Familiar as you are with Saotome Sensei's teaching, surely you are well aware that he has no problem with those students of his who choose to study other arts as well? That senior instructors in his organization openly invite instructors from other arts to teach at their dojos, with no organizational consequences? That in fact instructors who have done so remain extremely respected within the ASU?

So why are you misrepresenting *his* position on outside influences?

As for the rest of the post, it is very easy to win an argument when you take both sides. You are taking message board posts out of the context of what Dan actually teaches -- of which you remain proudly ignorant -- using them to define a straw man, and then walloping that straw man for all it's worth. Meanwhile, you have resolutely ignored every attempt to actually discuss the merits of your argument, retreating again and again to an appeal to an authority (Saotome Sensei) who as far as I can tell does not actually support your position.

There is an orthodoxy in the yo ho internal stuff that is being described here. Saotome Sensei is against orthodoxy. O Sensei was against orthodoxy.

You do realize that your frequent appeals to those authorities are the very definition of orthodoxy, right?

I would also suggest that advanced practitioners -- in any art -- can often do things that would be monumentally stupid for less advanced practitioners to even attempt. That's why teaching progressions exist.

Dan has accused me of misrepresenting the teachings of Saotome Sensei. He says that senior students of Saotome Sensei who are training with him this weekend don't recognize Saotome Sensei in the things I've stated in this discussion. My quotes of Saotome Sensei demonstrate conclusively that my positions were taken directly from him. So which is true? Did these senior students say what Dan says they said? If so, did they fail to understand the teachings of Saotome Sensei, or did Dan misrepresent what was said?

Dan's accusation against me is the greatest insult. I have not and would not misrepresent Sensei's teachings.

Quote:

Katherine Derbyshire wrote:

Familiar as you are with Saotome Sensei's teaching, surely you are well aware that he has no problem with those students of his who choose to study other arts as well? That senior instructors in his organization openly invite instructors from other arts to teach at their dojos, with no organizational consequences? That in fact instructors who have done so remain extremely respected within the ASU?

So why are you misrepresenting *his* position on outside influences?

As for the rest of the post, it is very easy to win an argument when you take both sides. You are taking message board posts out of the context of what Dan actually teaches -- of which you remain proudly ignorant -- using them to define a straw man, and then walloping that straw man for all it's worth. Meanwhile, you have resolutely ignored every attempt to actually discuss the merits of your argument, retreating again and again to an appeal to an authority (Saotome Sensei) who as far as I can tell does not actually support your position.

He refers to the false claim that O Sensei failed to pay Takeda Sensei what he was owed. Why do you think he makes this claim? Why bring that up.

Again, you are not serious. You try to score petty points based on typos and so forth.

Accusing Dan -- who claims no rank in Daito Ryu -- of spearheading a conspiracy to infiltrate aikido is hardly a typo. Too ridiculous to deserve comment, but not a typo. If you don't want to be held accountable for accusations like that one, don't make them.

I have repeatedly stated that internal work is good. I have repeatedly stated that what Dan does may be very good and may be useful at times to Aikido. I have repeatedly stated that one should generally connect with the center. I have merely argued, technically speaking, that there are other sides to Aikido. It is Dan, yourself, and others who have said these other sides are merely tricks. I am not the one being orthodox.

I have opposed the claims about the origins of Aikido and the claims that Aikido teachers since O Sensei were not doing real Aiki. Here there can be no multiple truths.

Quote:

Katherine Derbyshire wrote:

You do realize that your frequent appeals to those authorities are the very definition of orthodoxy, right?

I would also suggest that advanced practitioners -- in any art -- can often do things that would be monumentally stupid for less advanced practitioners to even attempt. That's why teaching progressions exist.

Dan has accused me of misrepresenting the teachings of Saotome Sensei. He says that senior students of Saotome Sensei who are training with him this weekend don't recognize Saotome Sensei in the things I've stated in this discussion. My quotes of Saotome Sensei demonstrate conclusively that my positions were taken directly from him. So which is true? Did these senior students say what Dan says they said? If so, did they fail to understand the teachings of Saotome Sensei, or did Dan misrepresent what was said?

I was not at the San Francisco seminar this weekend, and will not speculate on what was or was not said, or by whom.

I was at a different seminar, taught by one ASU rokudan and attended by another. Neither of them seems to see any particular conflict between Saotome Sensei's positions and their work with Dan. Both of them remain ASU instructors and dojo-cho in good standing. So clearly their interpretation is different from yours, and equally clearly Saotome Sensei is okay with that.